State v. Matarazzo

Full title: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GREGORY E. MATARAZZO…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Nov 9, 2016

DOCKET NO. A-0548-15T2 (App. Div. Nov. 9, 2016)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-0548-15T2

11-09-2016

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GREGORY E. MATARAZZO, Defendant-Appellant.

Stanley S. Spector, attorney for appellant. Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mary R. Juliano, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Messano and Espinosa. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 06-06-1154. Stanley S. Spector, attorney for appellant. Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mary R. Juliano, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM

Defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of third-degree theft by deception in 2007. His petition for expungement of that conviction was denied in 2015 because defendant had been admitted to and successfully completed the Pretrial Intervention program, resulting in the dismissal of an earlier charge of bad checks in 1991. In his appeal, defendant presents the following argument:

WHETHER PRE TRIAL INTERVENTION (PTI) GRANTED SOME TWENTY-TWO (22) YEARS EARLIER SHOULD ACT AUTOMATICALLY AS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO AN EXPUNGEMENT.

Expungement is a creature of the Legislature. It is available only "under certain conditions and subject to enumerated exceptions." In re P.H., 436 N.J. Super. 427, 435 (App. Div. 2014). N.J.S.A. 2C:52-14f states in pertinent part:

A petition for expungement . . . shall be denied when:

. . . .

[t]he person seeking the relief of expungement of a conviction for a . . . criminal offense has prior to or subsequent to said conviction been granted the dismissal of criminal charges following completion of a supervisory treatment or other diversion program.

The statute does not provide any time limitation to the bar or afford the trial court discretion to ignore this prohibition. Therefore, the petition was properly denied.

Affirmed.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION